Allowed

B. Soundara Subha v. S. Kannan

Madras HC11 Apr 2018TR CMP(MD)/40/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a transfer petition moving divorce proceedings from Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, to Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam, where the petitioner wife resides. The court prioritized the woman's convenience citing Precedent.

What did the court decide?

HMOP No. 102 of 2017 transferred to Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam to be heard with HMOP 594 of 2017; records transmitted within two weeks.

B. Soundara Subha Vs S. Kannan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated:11.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P (MD) No. 40 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.987 of 2018

B.Soundara Subha

.... Petitioner

S.Kannan ...Respondent

¶11

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24(b)(ii) of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the proceedings in HMOP No. 102 of 2017, now pending on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge,Tiruchengode and transfer the same to Sub Ordinate Judge,Thirumangalam to be heard along with HMOP 594 of 2017.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mrs. P. Jessi Jeeva Priya For Respondent :No appearance

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the proceedings in HMOP No. 102 of 2017, now pending on the file of the Sub ordinate Judge,Tiruchengode and transfer the same to the file of the Sub ordinate Judge,Thirumangalam to be heard along with HMOP No. 594 of 2017.

¶15

The respondent/husband herein has filed a petition in HMOP No.102 of 2017 on the file of the Sub ordinate Judge, Thiruchengode for divorce, whereas the petitioner/wife has filed HMOP No.594 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 23.06.2016 and she was living happily with her husband in the matrimonial home. When she went to her house for aadi function, her husband /respondent has promised her to take her back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, he did not turn up. Hence the petitioner has filed HMOP No. 594 of 2017 before the learned Sub ordinate Judge, Thirumangalam under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act,1995 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is submitted by the petitioner / wife that she is residing with her aged parents at Thirumangam and on all hearings, she used to attend the court proceedings in HMOP No.102 of 2017 pending before the Sub Court, Thiruchengode along with her parents. Since she is not in a position to meet out the travelling

¶18

¶19

expenditure, she seeks to transfer of HMOP No.102 of 2017 pending on the file of the Thiruchengode to be heard along with HMOP No. 594 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge, Thirumangalam.

¶20

Though notice was served on the respondent and his name also printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the respondent.

¶21

Heard Mr.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya learned counsel appearing

¶22

for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent.

¶23

Admittedly the petitioner/ wife is residing at Thirumangalam along with her aged parents and therefore, has filed HMOP No. 594 of 2017 before the learned Sub ordinate Judge, Thirumangalam. However, she had to attend all the hearings in HMOP No. 102 of 2017 on the file of the sub ordinate Judge, Thiruchengode filed by her husband, along with her parents by spending huge amount towards travelling allowances.

¶24

I am satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2008 (9)SCC 353 (Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta), has held that convenience of woman is to be taken into consideration first at the time of considering transfer applications. Hence, I am inclined to allow this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶25

i) The learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, is directed to transmit the entire records in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2017 to the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

ii) The learned Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam, after obtaining the records on transfer, is directed to dispose both the petitions within period of four months from the date of receipt of papers from the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode.

¶27

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CSI)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

Copy to:

¶32

The Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode.

¶33

2.The Subordiante Judge, Thirumangalam.

¶34

+1cc to M/s.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, Advocate, SR.No.60744 aav

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/4C/2P/SV/SAR1/2/5/2018 Tr.C.M.P (MD) No. 40 of 2018

¶36

and C.M.P.No.987 of 2018 11.04.2018

B. Soundara Subha v. S. Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Soundara Subha v. S. Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sivaraj M.Tech.M.B.a. Vs K.Kalaiselvi, M.a.B.Ed.,M.Phil

Sahitha Begum Vs a. Innasiraj

Jeyabrindha, Vs Sathish Rajakumar

S.Ganapathi Vs State Represented by

T. Virumandi Vs Sivaranjani

N. Chellasamy Vs M. Valli